fredinno Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Would a 5-Segment Space Shuttle SRB be able to be used as an ICBM? If so, then would it be justified (the only land-based ICBM currently is the Minuteman)?I'm pretty sure such a massive SRB would have a greater payload and range than Minuteman, and attached with a solid upper stage, could also serve as a smallsat launcher (or a larger ICBM)Doing so would also justify restarting production of the booster segments for the SLS, resulting in less R&D costs for a replacement, and would benefit from a already near-complete design (just attach a nuke on top). It would also lower costs for the boosters (and SLS) via mass production. Edited August 23, 2015 by fredinno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooddog15 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I found some problems with that idea:-I'm pretty sure that a 5 segment Shuttle SRB is too large to fit in a silo.-It's never flown without something large and heavy being attached to the side or on top-A upper stage would be a necessity-According to current plans, it's days flying with SLS are numbered.-SLS's SRB's are going to be use refurbished parts from the shuttle-The booster isn't designed to be stored for long periods of time.-The SRB based ICBM cannot be easily installed into a silo, nor less be transported in bulk to missile launch facilities.If the Air Force wanted to have more ICBM's we should start producing modernized versions of existing ICBM's like Minuteman and peacekeeper, however I think that would violate the multiple treaties the US has with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Rocket Scientist Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm pretty sure such a massive SRB would have a greater payload and range than Minuteman, and attached with a solid upper stage, could also serve as a smallsat launcher (or a larger ICBM)Smallsat? The Ares I and Liberty concepts were supposed to be capable of putting 20 tons in LEO with cryogenic upper stages. A solid upper stage or two could probably still give it 5-10 tons.Also, such a large ICBM would be pretty much useless. With that much payload, you'd either be dropping something like a hundred MIRV warheads or an enormous bomb with a yield in the tens of megatons. I can't think of a viable strategic use for either of those, given that it would be much easier and cheaper to just send a bunch of smaller ICBMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwenting Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Minuteman has a payload of 3 1 ton warheads. Add a few hundred kilos for the warhead bus and ejector systems and 5 tons wouldn't be an unreasonable payload number to aim for (you could fit 4 warheads that way).Of course the USA has accepted START-II which limits them to single warhead ICBMs only (while the Soviets are allowed to field multi-warhead missiles), the saved space and weight being used to increase range and add more decoys and other countermeasures.http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mineman3.htm gives a lot of numbers for the missile, which is indeed in dire need of replacement. The surviving ones are all going on 40 years old (and some even older), and their solid fuel rocket motors are seriously unpredictable by now, iow they're as likely to explode in the silo (non-nuclear) when someone tries to launch them as they are likely to fly true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon0009 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Wouldn't it be really expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex_NL Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 ...Doing so would also justify restarting production of the booster segments for the SLS, ...You 'JUSTIFY' the conversion of those boosters into ICBM's??? Am I really the only one slightly worried about this?Weapons of mass destruction should be dismantled and scrapped. Not be developed and stockpiled.The Space Shuttle and SLS programs are scientific, projects of peace and international cooperation. Those should not be perverted by ideas of war and destruction. The mere idea of this is, for the lack of a better word, sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 It would have too much thrust. Way, way too much thrust. The shuttle SRBs are the most powerful rocket engine that has ever been flown in the history of mankind, and that was the old 4-segment version... the new ones are going to be stronger.I'm aware that you can shape the fuel segments, by the way... but that largely controls the shape of the thrust profile. It doesn't allow you to throttle the booster like you can in KSP, because the only way you can avoid a massive thrust spike near the end of the burn - when a lot of surface area is exposed after most of the fuel has burnt away - is to increase the thrust at the start of the burn. No matter which way you turn it, you'd still get an absurd TWR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Boosters Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 It would have too much thrust. Way, way too much thrust. The shuttle SRBs are the most powerful rocket engine that has ever been flown in the history of mankind, and that was the old 4-segment version... the new ones are going to be stronger.I'm aware that you can shape the fuel segments, by the way... but that largely controls the shape of the thrust profile. It doesn't allow you to throttle the booster like you can in KSP, because the only way you can avoid a massive thrust spike near the end of the burn - when a lot of surface area is exposed after most of the fuel has burnt away - is to increase the thrust at the start of the burn. No matter which way you turn it, you'd still get an absurd TWR.What do you mean with throttling the booster? The initial adjustment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The Space Shuttle and SLS programs are scientific, projects of peace and international cooperation. Those should not be perverted by ideas of war and destruction. The mere idea of this is, for the lack of a better word, sickening. Shuttle wasn't a science project, it was supposed to be a launcher for all US payloads, including military ones. There were eight shuttle flights crewed entirely by DoD personnel and lofting classified payloads, and most of the details of those flights remain classified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwenting Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Shuttle wasn't a science project, it was supposed to be a launcher for all US payloads, including military ones. There were eight shuttle flights crewed entirely by DoD personnel and lofting classified payloads, and most of the details of those flights remain classified.And a lot of the others were partially military in nature. Communications birds, GPS related stuff, and of course weather and other atmospheric science is also fueled in at least part by military requirements for accurate weather data and predictions.Without military funding the golden goose that was the STS would never have been hatched, it was way too expensive for anything but military (and other government funded) budgets.If you consider that New Horizons had to be reduced in size to save cost (and many other scientific launches never happen because they can't scrape the funds together), do people really think science was a primary driver behind the excessively expensive STS launches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Tex_NL's original point still stands, but unfortunately the US military is still on a war footing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex_NL Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Sure they did launch military equipment and got military funding. That still does not 'justify' turning it into a dedicated delivery system for a nuclear apocalypse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 The boosters are the part used for the ICBM. The actual SLS would not be relayed to the military otherwise.I'm wondering how 5-segs would have problems being stored for long periods of time. They're still SRBs, so it should be fine, right (correct me if I'm wrong)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The actual composition is different; they're designed for casting a few months before flight, if you left them for years the propellant would slump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 Smallsat? The Ares I and Liberty concepts were supposed to be capable of putting 20 tons in LEO with cryogenic upper stages. A solid upper stage or two could probably still give it 5-10 tons.Also, such a large ICBM would be pretty much useless. With that much payload, you'd either be dropping something like a hundred MIRV warheads or an enormous bomb with a yield in the tens of megatons. I can't think of a viable strategic use for either of those, given that it would be much easier and cheaper to just send a bunch of smaller ICBMs.Smallsat to GEO, not LEO. With LEO, it would probably be much more, Delta II level maybe.- - - Updated - - -How difficult would it be to change the propellant type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 What do you mean with throttling the booster? The initial adjustment?He is right, the booster is way to powerful and there is no control, its designed to lift a huge tank of fuel and a shuttle. If you look at the launch dynamics, at the beginning the thrusters are carrying up a fuel tank that is way to heavy for the SSME to carry itself, once the boosters are released the tank is lighter and the shuttle is traveling something like 2200 km/h. If you took all the load off of the booster and replaced them with a 500kg payload, it would need to be very aerodynamic because it would be smashing the sound barrier much lower in the atmosphere (before the SSMEs throttle down at maximum dynamic pressure), and you would essentially need to go up and make a right turn in order to avoid overheating during the eastward role. It would be like a surface to air missile that just didn't stop, it would be out of visible view when it finally shutdown. The segment shape issue, is that you can create attenuators in the fuel shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 You 'JUSTIFY' the conversion of those boosters into ICBM's??? Am I really the only one slightly worried about this?Weapons of mass destruction should be dismantled and scrapped. Not be developed and stockpiled.The Space Shuttle and SLS programs are scientific, projects of peace and international cooperation. Those should not be perverted by ideas of war and destruction. The mere idea of this is, for the lack of a better word, sickening.Well... I wouldn't go quite that far, but I definitely disapprove of the idea. Making ICBMs that are needed is one thing. Making ICBMs that aren't wanted or needed and paid for with taxpayer money (or debt) as a jobs program... not so much. It's completely wayward thinking IMO. Heck... these wouldn't even make particularly good ICBMs.Best,-Slashy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex_NL Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Point is; they are NOT needed. Period!The cold war is over. Scare tactics won't work any more. Even if in the most unlikeliest of cases some rogue state does launch a nuclear strike nobody in the western world. And I do mean NOBODY will retaliate with a nuclear counter strike. Doing so will be 'MAD' Mutual Assured Destruction.I am no pacifist, I do believe in a strong military. But not to scare others into submission or to enslave others to your values and believes. Only for precision surgical strikes with minimal collateral damage.If only a fraction of the annual military budget of certain nations (*cough* USA *cough*) would be spend on actually helping struggling nations instead of forcing them into submission there would not be a need for sabre rattling at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt_flyer Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 A 5 segment SrB would have wayyy to much thrust for the payload (especially given the much increased accuracy of nuclear bombs reentry vehicles - nuclear bombs tend to become more 'precision' light bombs than the 'wide area' they were - because back then, if the bomb could land within 1km of the target, you needed a blast zone capable of still destroying the target. If you want an idea of the kind of payload a shuttle SRB can carry, check ATK's liberty rocket concept... Where it would have carried an Ariane V core stage as a second stage...Now, 'multisegment' SRBs don't burn longer - they have more thrust (because more solid fuel is burned at the same time in a multisegment SRB) so, using a single segment of those SRBs would keep the burn time, but limit the thrust, so you could build a reliable first stage (no more o-rings) for a light rocket. (Check the vega concept for comparison - the P-120 first stage is a single segment SRB - derived from Ariane V multisegment SRBs. And the future evolution of this SRB (the P-120C) will be used as both Vega first stage and Ariane VI boosters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Transport and handling alone would make this impractical, really. The largest missile stage ever handled in the US was the SR-118 first stage on the Peacekeeper, roughly 50 metric tons; this would be close to 600 metric tons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micr0wave Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who 'needs' ICBMs anyway ?They serve no constructive purpose, more the opposite.Building weapons for peace is like f**#+ing for virginity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I'm pretty sure such a massive SRB would have a greater payload and range than Minuteman Edited August 23, 2015 by K^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSlash27 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Point is; they are NOT needed. Period!(more stuff) All due respect, but you're off into 100% political territory. I don't believe anybody actually wants a discussion about the pros and cons of maintaining a nuclear arsenal on this page. You clearly are passionate about your position and there are others who no doubt disagree just as passionately... but this ain't the place for it.Best,-Slashy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Who 'needs' ICBMs anyway ?They serve no constructive purpose, more the opposite.Building weapons for peace is like f**#+ing for virginity.Except people very often want to lose virgin status ASAP. With nukes, mutually assured destruction is a pretty powerful motivation to not nuke each other.Granted, nukes are very destructive, but we could use them to build an Orion drive. At least see if it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 A 1-segment SRB would be approx. 147.5T, and would solve the TWR ratio for the most part. This would probably resolve the speed problem. Attach this to a Castor, and you would probably have something large enough to launch even a 10T nuke (no idea how far). This would be a major improvement over the Minuteman's 1T capacity.A Centaur attached as a 2nd stage instead would be able to launch into orbit 8 Tons (this was a studied shuttle-derived launch vehicle configuration)Of course, they would have to also develop the 1-segs, though. Either way, it would be pretty darn powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts